|
Message-ID: <ZLRdasdXiHLTxKx7@fuz.su> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 23:13:14 +0200 From: Robert Clausecker <fuz@....su> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: strcmp() guarantees and assumptions Hi Markus, Am Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 09:33:16PM +0200 schrieb Markus Wichmann: > Am Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 07:59:57PM +0200 schrieb Robert Clausecker: > > That's good to hear. Any idea on the “what do existing libc > > implementations permit” bit? > > > > So I quickly checked musl, dietlibc, bionic, and glibc, and > unsurprisingly, all of the implementations I looked at allow the strings > to be unterminated if they mismatch before access becomes restricted. > This is, of course, an implementation detail that applications must not > rely on, but it nevertheless is the case. > > The problem in your implementation is that the calls to strlen() will > iterate over both input strings to the end, causing basically a cache > flush for large inputs, only to then iterate over both inputs a second > time. Iterating only once is a major benefit, since it avoids half of > the cache misses. Of course. This was merely a simple example to demonstrate the general point. I of course do not plan to do anything like that. > Also, glibc already has an SSE strcmp implementation you may want to > look at. I'm not going to look at glibc as it's LGPL licensed. I am aware of the Intel implementation, but I don't like that it has to duplicate the code 16 times for each possible misalignment pattern. Without having to ensure that a cacheline of data is only touched once we confirm there is no previous mismatch, it might be possible to write simpler code, but I'm currently not entirely sure how. > Ciao, > Markus Yours, Robert Clausecker -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an 8-bit clean world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.